[roymail]

I've never owned or heard powered stereo speakers.  One exception, the DJ at a recent wedding I attended used powered Mackie speakers that sounded very nice.  Also, I guess my computer speakers are powered.  But since all speakers need power, I've always felt that it makes more sense to use dedicated, external power amps instead of some lesser design inside the box.  Right or wrong?

I thought I'd see what you guys think.  Please share your experience with power speakers and/or opinions. 

[guest48077]

I have been using powered monitor for  a while now. Originally I use them for studio, Mixing purposes. I realized I like the FLAT response so I started my Stereo system off with Powered Yorkville YSM1p.

I still enjoy the sound but feel I may be missing the bigger sound of regular speakers as my Monitors are near field monitors. This is not to say my system does not sound nice, it sounds very nice. I is clear, crisp, great tight bass with no additives to the sound.

[Kevin Haskins]

Well.... all loudspeakers are powered.   It is an arbitrary constraint imposed by the market to differentiate it into the categories we have.   From an engineering perspective designing both the amplifier & loudspeaker gives you several extra degrees of design freedom.     There are several advantages to designing both the amplifier & loudspeaker as one unit and I'd say those advantages easily outweigh any possible disadvantages.

The examples of powered monitors on the market tend to be pro-audio or studio monitors.    High-end audio tends to be mainly passive loudspeaker designs.   There is no reason for it other than the fact that the customers tend to get what they want and active designs have never been popular in high-end audio.

[Construct]

All I can say is listen to ATC powered monitors.  All doubts will be erased.

[srb]

Many powered monitors employ an electronic crossover and bi-amplification.  This engineering approach has the potential for great sound without the complexity and setup of external electronic crossovers.
 
They do however impose restrictions on physical amplifier size.  If you like the sound of class D or class T amplifiers with switch-mode power supplies, that likely isn't a problem, but if you prefer the sound of traditional class A/B amplification supported by robust linear power supplies, there will be limitations on how large a transformer and filter capacitor bank you can stuff inside.
 
Steve

[navi]

I've used powered ACTIVE nearfields for the last 7 years. I will never go back to passive speakers -
If you prefer a simple and minimal system with no external power amps and metres of speaker cables go actives. 
But with Actives that i've owned they all need to be mod'ed (Behringer, KRK, AVI) or they sound a bit shut in and grainy up top.

[Construct]

For the money, Paradigm active monitors were quite good.  

[navi]

For the money, Paradigm active monitors were quite good.  

I've always wanted to hear the paradigm! My fav has always been the Genelecs - just could never afford a pair.

Ivan

[Construct]

I've always wanted to hear the paradigm! My fav has always been the Genelecs - just could never afford a pair.

Ivan

You used the "G"  word!  Genelecs and ATC vie for my favorite powered monitors.  So much precision, yet musical without sounding etched or analytically sterile.  Awesome gear!

[DanTheMan]

My only concern with active speakers is that they require more engineering to accomplish and the amps will be subject to continual abuse from resonance.  I've read that active Behringer monitors have a lot of reliability issues.  I haven't read that about Genelec, Mackie, KRK, or JBL.  Some others will chime in with their experience I hope.  I'm dying to hear the new Genelec Coaxial monitors.  The measurements look impossibly good on them.

http://www.genelec.com/documents/other/Genelec%208260A%20Technical%20Paper.pdf

Dan

[Construct]

My only concern with active speakers is that they require more engineering to accomplish and the amps will be subject to continual abuse from resonance.  I've read that active Behringer monitors have a lot of reliability issues.  I haven't read that about Genelec, Mackie, KRK, or JBL.  Some others will chime in with their experience I hope.  I'm dying to hear the new Genelec Coaxial monitors.  The measurements look impossibly good on them.

http://www.genelec.com/documents/other/Genelec%208260A%20Technical%20Paper.pdf

Dan

Behringer and KRK are value models... mediocrity at affordable prices, and yes--reliability issues.  Mackie and JBl are pros...rock solid stuff.

[navi]

I had the KRK V4- which i replaced the Cap for blackgates and nichicon and it was one of the most musical actives I had the pleasure to listen to- before the mods they did sound pretty average.

I'm looking to get a pair of 2nd hand genelecs on Ebay (1029 or 2029B) I heard the 8040's and they just blew me away with the ability to REALLY REALLY  hear into the recording. I could never afford it.

Ivan.

[Kevin Haskins]

My only concern with active speakers is that they require more engineering to accomplish and the amps will be subject to continual abuse from resonance.  I've read that active Behringer monitors have a lot of reliability issues.  I haven't read that about Genelec, Mackie, KRK, or JBL.  Some others will chime in with their experience I hope.  I'm dying to hear the new Genelec Coaxial monitors.  The measurements look impossibly good on them.

http://www.genelec.com/documents/other/Genelec%208260A%20Technical%20Paper.pdf

Dan

There is nothing that says the electronics have to go in the loudspeaker.    You get better shielding in a full chassis, better heat dissipation and you don't deal with the continuous vibration issues.    You also pick up more real estate to physically mount things like transformers, power supplies etc... etc.... 

For me.... the only dividing line between a passive and active design is where you design the crossover and that is actually easier active because you don't have a moving target for the impedance of the network.   For that reason in the crossover design phase it is actually easier to get better results with an active network than a passive.    Not to mention you can do things down low that are impossible to achieve with the passive.     The loads you are dealing with after the amplifier are simple easy to drive loads so that substantially changes the requirements for the amplifier too.    You can drive a tweeter happily on a couple watts and since the signal isn't riding on a low frequency sine wave, you have more effective headroom with less power.     

You also can voice the entire system with the electronics in place.   I know that the research says that an amplifier is an amplifier but my seat of the pants listening doesn't bear that out.    I find preferences for different amplifiers based upon single blind testing.    Having the ability to voice the entire design WITH the electronics is just one more piece of the puzzle that is in your control when designing an active system.     

[Ethan Winer]

Please share your experience with power speakers and/or opinions.

There are many advantages: Active speakers are typically bi-amped, which often yields a cleaner sound with less distortion. And bi-amping offers more ways to optimize the crossover performance because it uses active rather than passive components. Also, the power amps will be well matched to the speakers, they won't have a fan, and the wires from amp to speaker are shorter which improves damping. But to me the overwhelming advantage, as implemented in Mackie speakers anyway, is that the woofer cone's motion can be included within the power amp's feedback loop to reduce LF distortion by a significant amount.

--Ethan

[jtwrace]

But to me the overwhelming advantage, as implemented in Mackie speakers anyway, is that the woofer cone's motion can be included within the power amp's feedback loop to reduce LF distortion by a significant amount.

--Ethan

Can you explain further?

[Ethan Winer]

Can you explain further?

People fret over distortion levels of 0.01 percent in their sound cards and preamps etc, all the while ignoring that loudspeakers - especially woofers - have distortion far higher. Distortion of 5 percent and even more is common in woofers, especially at higher volume levels.

Most people understand that negative feedback is used in amplifier circuits to reduce distortion. A portion of the circuit's output is sampled and sent back to the input, with the polarity reversed, which reduces distortion and flattens the frequency response. The same technique is used by Mackie to reduce woofer distortion in their active speakers. In this case they monitor the current drawn by the speaker, and compare that to how much current should be drawn for whatever voltage is applied at that moment. Then the voltage can be adjusted as needed for the correct amount of woofer excursion.

--Ethan

[Kevin Haskins]

There are many advantages: Active speakers are typically bi-amped, which often yields a cleaner sound with less distortion. And bi-amping offers more ways to optimize the crossover performance because it uses active rather than passive components. Also, the power amps will be well matched to the speakers, they won't have a fan, and the wires from amp to speaker are shorter which improves damping. But to me the overwhelming advantage, as implemented in Mackie speakers anyway, is that the woofer cone's motion can be included within the power amp's feedback loop to reduce LF distortion by a significant amount.

--Ethan

I'm not convinced that it is a good approach.    A good transducer doesn't produce audible distortion until it is pushed to its limit.    At that point.... it is beyond the point of electronic correction.     Transducers produce low order distortion products that we tolerate in large amounts.   Amplifiers have the potential to produce high order distortion products that are highly audible in vanishingly low amounts.   

I'll leave the transducer out of the feedback loop and take my chances with the ever so modest increase in low order distortion products in the bass thank you very much.   

 

[Construct]

I had the KRK V4- which i replaced the Cap for blackgates and nichicon and it was one of the most musical actives I had the pleasure to listen to- before the mods they did sound pretty average.

Ivan.

That confirms my suspicion that the crossover parts were holding back the potential of the drivers.  That does happen a lot when companies have to meet a price point. 

[JLM]

I'm with you Kevin and Ethan, very well presented.  I’ll ignore the feedback debate, but it’s all spot on with me.

What makes a particular speaker design active is having one power amp channel connected directly to each driver, period.  Forget about where the amp located and instead make sure the crossover is wired between the preamp/source and the amps.

The primary advantage of active design is that without a crossover "blocking the view" of the driver, the amp can not only more easily respond to the reactive load, but with only one driver in play the load is inherently less complex and again easier to respond to. 

Personally I don’t see anymore reason to blame crossover circuits designs or parts quality more than in any of the other circuits in the music reproduction chain for limiting sound quality.  Of course some tweaks have more profound effects than others.

It's much smarter (but less "fun" perhaps) to let the designer versus the customer do the engineering and matchmaking between drivers and amps as after all he has the experience, the drivers, testing equipment, time, and other resources at hand.

I was fortunate years ago to audition Paradigm Studio 20 ($800/pair small vented 2-way passive standmounts) versus Paradigm Active 20 (the $1,600/pair active version).  This was an epiphany for me!  There was simply no comparison.  While the Studio 20 represented a reasonable value on all counts, the Active 20 was astounding. 

Its frequency response was flat (I'd never appreciated that until then or since until I started using DEQ).  A flat response clears up and makes sense out of otherwise is just noise in comparison.  The dynamic range was incredible, it played like a big floorstanding 3-way.  But the extension and power of the bass was simply amazing. Passersby were awe struck in disbelief.  There just wasn't any way of explaining what the eyes saw versus what the ears heard.  Subwoofers (for music) go home!

That being said, Paradigm gave up trying to sell the Actives due to consumer perceptions against active design and not being able to load up their equipment rack with trophies they had "hunted".  And rumor has it that these suffered from some of the same reliability issues mentioned above for the cheaper designs. 

And realize that studio monitors are intended to present a very black and white, detailed sound to analyze the music versus the more "water colored" and laid back presentation found in most residential offerings meant for musical enjoyment.  So while most active designs may not be for everyone, the concept is quite valid.

Note that I am a purist and use single driver speakers (which by default are active) with monoblocks.  All the active design advantages listed help make that whole concept work.

[bunnyma357]

Another reason against the use of active monitors in the consumer world, is just the logistics of running power to each speaker. Can lead to very bad WAF. They tend to work much better in a custom install, where you can plan for such things - which is a small share of the market.

Another small issue is that each speaker often has it's own set of volume and EQ adjustments, so it is real easy for a curious visitor to throw your system a little out of whack, and can be a real pain to try and track down.

I worked in a facility where we had probably 50-60 pairs of Genelecs and I don't remember any of them failing. The reliability of Behringer stuff is, as others have noted, more due to compromises in build quality - I'd guess you'd see similar reliability issues in their mixers and processing gear which isn't subject to resonance.

Jim C